The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach in considering sufficient cause for delay condonation, especially when government entities are involved in litigation.

JUDGMENT

Bharati Dangre, J. - The applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 26/06/2018 passed by the District Judge-10, Nasik in Civil Misc. Application No.151 of 2015 instituted by the Municipal Corporation of City of Nasik and two others. The order is passed in an application seeking condonation of delay in preferring appeal against judgment and order dated 23/08/2012 by the 6th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nasik in Regular Civil Suit No.313 of 2011.

2. By the said application, a relief was sought to condone the delay of 2 years, 8 months and 16 days in preferring the appeal. By the impugned order, learned District Judge has condoned the delay on being satisfied with the reasoning stated in the application and by recording that the delay appears to be "probable and acceptable" and it has been explained by setting out the sufficient reasons. The court records that the delay of 2 years, 8 months and 16 days is not intentional, but accidental and, therefore, to afford a fair opportunity and to enjoy the right of appeal the delay deserves to be condoned.

3. The brief background and the impugned order would reveal that the applicant had filed a regular civil suit for recovery of possession of suit property or alternatively seeking a declaration that the act of Nashik Mahanagar Palika acquiring the suit property without payment of compensation is illegal. He sought compensation as per the current market rate. The civil court settled the issues and the burden was cast on the plaintiff to prove that he is entitled for possession of the suit property or compensation for damages and on the issue whether the defendants have proved that in the year 1984, the plaintiff delivered the suit property to them voluntarily and without consideration, the issue has been answered partly in the affirmative. By the judgment and order dated 23/08/2012, the following order is passed:

"1. The Suit is decreed. No order as to costs.

2. Defendants are directed to consider and grnat compensation or release TDR to the plaintiff within six months, after compliance of all necessary formalities by the plaintiff.

3. Decree be drawn up, accordingly."

4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the Municipal Corporation of City of Nashik preferred an appeal in the year 2015 along with an application for condonation of delay seeking to condone delay of 2 years, 8 months and 16 days in preferring the appeal. The scantly drafted application states that the delay has occurred on account of administrative reasons on the part of the applicant. Relevant portion of paragraph 3 of the application reads as under:

"3) The applicant submits that the said delay has occurred due to some administrative reasons of the office of the applicant. The decision was communicated to the Court Department of the appellant and they forwarded the certified copies to the Estate Department for necessary action. However, there were certain changes in the office of Estate Manager and also transfer of Estate Manager and the post was vacant for a long period and the said work was being looked after by incharge person. At the same time in this period the certified copies were not traceable. When the copies were traced, it was brought to the notice of Estate Manager who immediately after going through the judgment and decree proposed an appeal, and accordingly, file was put up for necessary approval for filing an appeal before Honble Commissioner, NMC, Nashik and in this process the time is lost in obtaining approval. The Hon. Commissioner gave approval for filing appeal. Then thereafter the time is again lapsed for sanction and approval of the required Court fee stamp for the purpose of filing appeal. The delay in filing appeal is unintentional and there is sufficient reasonable cause for condonation of the same."

5. The prayer made in the application was opposed by the present petitioner. In ignorance of the said opposition, the application came to be entertained by the appellate court by recording th